The Dead and their Possessions

2009

The treatment of human remains has become a very contentious issue, with a range of legal, moral and political pressures now weighing on archaeologists and museum curators. Attempts to respond to this changing cultural context have often tried to show an increased respect for the dead, though it is argued here that these have sometimes had counter-productive results. This paper discusses some of the complex ways in which living people have a stake in human remains, considering particularly the ideas of respect and empathy, and noting the ways in which the treatment of human remains may have changed significantly since they were originally collected. The distinction sometimes made between Western and indigenous practices is queried, with their entanglement being highlighted. It is also argued that the duality between the body and culture prevalent in archaeological accounts and museums is unhelpful. This is followed by a consideration of museums and archaeology as containing sacred practices, while a comparison of 'art' and 'heritage' with the Maori idea of taonga is suggested as offering a way of viewing material that recognises its sacred quality. The potential social value of displaying human remains by archaeologists and in museums is also explored. Finally, it is suggested that the debate about the treatment of human remains by archaeologists and in museums is an opportunity to engage with a profound interest in a way that could lead to a more considered interest in the material world.

This paper is a commentary on the Debates in World Archaeology issue for December 2016.

The Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Claire Smith, gen. ed., pp. 380-93. 2014, 2014

Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 45(2), 2010

WAC on the Global Stage. As readers will know, our host organisation the World Archaeological Congress has a global reach and represents us to other global organisations. Key areas for WAC's concern are of course the treatment of archaeological remains and engagements with communities, especially Indigenous communities. Most recently, WAC has engaged with the World Bank in commenting on the latter's policy on development as it affects archaeological resources and engagements with communities. This is not the first time WAC and the World Bank have had conversations: representatives of the World Bank have attended and spoken at several WAC Congresses and been well received. What is shocking in the most recent contacts has been the disregard for and ignorance of archaeological and Indigenous interests shown by the World Bank in its policy-making. As Editors, we wish to put on record our support for WAC initiatives in engaging with issues that affect our community and maintaining the ethical standards WAC has set in these areas. We urge other organisations whose work engages with or affects archaeological material or the communities they represent to ensure that organisations such as WAC are approached for advice in policy and that advice is fully incorporated into policy and practice.

Archaeology has focused on the mortuary context since its inception. The earliest antiquarians took advantage of prominent burial monuments and other grave contexts in their search for curios and information about past societies. While burials tell us much about the ways in which people buried their dead, they have also been a valuable resource for reconstructing the ways in which people lived. Today, the technical advances made in the study of human remains themselves allow for more detailed study of past peoples than ever before. With that change has come an added responsibility concerning the proper handling of human remains. During this symposium, co-organised between the Universities of Groningen and Leiden, we aim to start a discussion between researchers interested in studying cultural and emotional aspects of burial practices, and those using human remains as a data source for lifestyle and population studies, to which the issue of ethical practices is crucial. April 19 Session 1: Bioarchaeology and the use of funerary remains for population studies Session 2: Funerary archaeology and exploring approaches to death and mourning Session 3: Human remains and ethical practice in archaeology April 20 The workshop will focus discussion on the results of the three sessions. The aim of the interactive workshop sessions is to engage ReMA and PhD students in critical review of mortuary archaeology today and to explore opportunities for collaborative research.

Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 2010

professional divide. It was the keen amateur archaeologists who were the source of inspiration for many who became involved in the discipline in the 1920s and 1930s, as a number of Smith's interviewees confirm. Warwick Bray argues that it took until the early 1960s before the demand for paid employment in archaeology started to disappear along with the need for a private income (Smith 2009: 114). Perhaps that is when the professionalisation process became really entrenched, which fits in nicely with the date of Piggott's 1963 address. Whilst the importance of Cambridge in the interwar years may be exaggerated in Smith's account, her work is undoubtedly groundbreaking. As a result of some determined sleuthing she has uncovered a goldmine of new material-not only from her innovative oral interviews, which are an extraordinarily valuable primary source for historians of archaeology, but also in respect of many of the documentary sources she has uncovered. Particular mention should be made of the tracking down of the Garrod papers in France, plus the Tom Lethbridge material, and what would appear to be important unpublished memoirs and papers in relation to Thurstan Shaw, C. W. Phillips and Miles Burkitt. One of the great strengths of the study is its ability to switch focus from the 'big beasts' like Grahame Clark and Dorothy Garrod, and to examine some of the supporting players. It would have been good to hear even more about the previously unsung Palestinian excavator Yusra (Smith 2009: 85), which addresses both sexual and racial biases in much archaeological writing. Similarly, the biographical portraits of Maureen O'Reilly and Charles Denston make a refreshing change in their insistence on the importance of two individuals who were significant in the development of archaeology at Cambridge, but who would both normally have been written out of the script due to their less elevated roles (Smith 2009: 65-68).

Royal Anthropological Institute, 2003